> Still, they're easier to refactor to without breaking anything, and you can > treat the change as an intermediate stage between mess and full > class-hood (or just leave them as-is and call it a win). >
Yep, that's exactly what I was going for. I wouldn't go for clean, I'd go for the smallest steps I can make that I know won't break anything. Then you're in a better position to reduce your complexity if/when it bites you. Same motivation is behind shrinking your controllers without necessarily changing your route table (and thus all your routing methods). Eventually you'll want to fix them up too, but that's a harder change to make without breaking things. > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Paul Annesley <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wednesday, 12 October 2011 at 2:05 PM, Nick Partridge wrote: >> >> * Large models can have logic broken out into Modules and mixed in. >> >> .. or preferably split out into separate classes, where that logic is not >> part of the same single responsibility. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en.
